The Critical Thinking Initiative

Steve Pearlman: Today on actual intelligence, we have a very important and timely discussion with Dr. Robert Neber of a SU, whose recent opinion piece in inside higher education is titled AI and Higher Ed, and an impending collapse. Robert is a teaching professor and honors faculty fellow at the Barrett Honors College at a SU.And the reason that I invited him to speak with us today on actual intelligence is his perspective on artificial intelligence and education. And his contention roughly that higher Ed's rush to embrace artificial intelligence is going to lead us to some rather troubling places. So let's get to it with Dr.Robert Niebuhr.Robert. We talked a little bit about this on our pre-call, and I don't usually start a podcast like this, but what you said to me was so striking, so, uh, nauseating. So infuriating that I think it's a good place to begin and maybe some of [00:01:00] our listeners who value actual intelligence will also find it as appalling as I do, or at least a point of interest that needs to be talked about.You were in a meeting and we're not gonna talk about exactly, necessarily what that meeting was, but you're in a meeting with a number of other. Faculty members and something interesting arose, and I'll allow you to share that experience with us and we'll use that as a springboard for this discussion.Robert Neibuhr: Yeah, sure. Uh, so obviously, as you can imagine, right, I mean, faculty are trying to cope with, um, a perceived notion that students are using AI to create essays. And, and, uh, you know, in, in the, where I'm at, you know, one of the backbones, um, in my unit to. Um, assessed work is looking at argumentative essays.So the, the sort of, the idea that, that this argumentative essay is a backbone of a, of a grade and assessment. Um, and if we're, if we're suspecting that they're, they're using ai, um, you [00:02:00] know, faculty said, well, why should we bother grading essays if they're written by bots? Um, and, and you know, I mean, there's a lot, there's a lot to unpack there and a lot of things that are problematic with that.Um, but yeah, the, the, the idea that, you know, we, we don't have to, to combat a, to combat the perceived threat of, of student misuse of ai, we just will forego critical assessment. Um, that, that was, you know, not a lone voice in the room. That that seemed to be something that was, that was reasonably popular.Steve Pearlman: Was there any recognition of what might be being sacrificed by not ever having students write another essay just to avoid them using ai, which of course we don't want them to just have essays write, uh, so of course we don't want them to just have AI write their essays. That's not getting us anywhere.But was there any conception that there might be some loss in terms of that policy? [00:03:00]Robert Neibuhr: I mean, I, I think, I think so. I mean, I, I imagine, uh, you know, I think. My colleagues come from, from a place where, where they're, they're trying to figure out and, and cope with a change in reality. Right? But, um, there, there is also a subtext, I think across, across faculties in the United States of being overworked.And, and especially with the mantra among, you know, administration of, you know, AI will help us ramp up or scale up our, our class sizes and we can do more and we can. All this sort of extra stuff that it would seem like faculty would be, um, you know, more of their time and, and more of their effort, you know, as an ask here that I think that's, that, that may be, that may have been part of it.Um, I, I, I don't know that the idea of like the logical implication of this, that, you know, if we no longer. Exercise students' brains if we no longer have them go through a process that encourages critical [00:04:00] thinking and art, you know, articulating that through writing, like what that means. I, I don't know that they sort of thought it beyond like, well, you know, this could be, we could try it and see was kind of the mentality that I, I sort of gauged from, from the room.But, uh, it's, I mean, it's a bigger problem, right? I think the, the, the larger aspect of. What do we, what do we do? What can we do as faculty in this sort of broad push for AI all over the place? And then the idea of the mixed messages. Students get right. Students get this idea, well, this is the future. If you don't learn how to, how to use it, if you don't, you know, understand it, you're gonna be left behind.And then at the same time, it's like, well, don't use it from my class. Right? Learn it, but don't use it here. And that's. That's super unclear for students and it's, it's unclear for faculty too, right? So, um, it, it's one of those things that it's not, um, I don't think in the short term it works. And as you, as you, as you implied, right, the long term solution here of getting rid of essay [00:05:00] assignments in, in a discussion based seminar that relies on essays as a critical, I mean, this is not a viable solution, right?We, we got the entire purpose of, of the program in this case.Steve Pearlman (2): And yet a lot of faculty from what you described and a lot of what I've read as well, is also moving towards having AI be able to grade. The students work not just on simple tests, but on essays. And as you point out in your article, that's potentially moving us to a place where kids are using AI to write the essays, and then faculty are using AI to grade the essays.And who, when did the human being get involved in between, in terms of any intellectual growth?Robert Neibuhr: Yeah. No, it, it's, I think it's a, it's, it's really, it's a, it's a really big, it's a really big problem because, um. Again, those long-term implications, uh, are, are clear as, as, as you laid out. But, um, it's also, I mean, like, again, like this notion that [00:06:00] there's, there's a tool that obviously can help us, you know, multiple avenues where AI can be, can be something that's, that's helps us be more efficient and all this, those sort of stuff that, that's, that's, that's true.Um, so it's, it's there. So we should gauge and understand it. Um, but it doesn't mean you just use it everywhere. You know, you, you can buy, I don't know, you can buy alcohol at the grocery store. It doesn't mean you have it with your Cheerios, right? I mean, there's a, there's a time and place polite society says, you know, you can consume this at these times with these meals or in this company, right?It's not all, all of this. So things, so, you know, the message that I think it's a level of respect, right? If we, we don't respect the students, if we don't lay out clear guidelines and. We don't show them respect, we don't ask for respect back if, if we use bots to grade and the whole thing just becomes a charade.And, and I, I think the, again, the system [00:07:00] begins to, to break down and I think people wind up losing the point of what the exercise is all about anyway. And I, I may not just the assignment or the class, but like higher education. Right. I mean, the, the, the point is to. Teach us how to be better thinkers to, to gauge, evaluate information, uh, you know, use evidence, uh, apply it in our lives as, as we see fit.And, and if it's, and if we're not prepped for that, then, then what did they prep us for? If, if, you know, the student's perspective, it's like, well, what did I just do? What did I pay for? That's, that's a, that's a huge long term problemSteve Pearlman (2): it seems like. Uh. That, what did I pay for? Question is gonna come to bear heavily on higher education in the near future because if students are able to use AI to accomplish some of their work, and if faculty are using AI to grade some of their [00:08:00] work and so on, and then the, you know, the, these degrees are costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.And it's an effectual piece of paper that maybe that loses value in essence also because the students didn't really get anything from that process or get as much as they used to because they're using ai. You know, is this moving towards some kind of gross reassessment of the value of higher education or its role in our society entirely?Robert Neibuhr: I mean, it it, I think it certainly. It certainly has the potential, right? I mean, I would, I would even look back and, and think of a, a steady decline, right? That this is, this is one of, of many pieces that have gone, gone down. And I, you know, I mean mentioning in, in your, in your question just now, right? That the sense of, you know, students as client or customer, uh, how that has changed the sort of the, the interface and, and [00:09:00] how, you know.Uh, we, we think of this, uh, this whole, this whole endeavor, right? I mean, um, and, you know, and this leads to things like, oh, retention numbers and, and all these sort of things that the mental gymnastics that happens to, um, you know, do all these things and, and the truth be told, right? Different paths for different people, right?There's not, you know, there's not a single, like, you don't have to get the degree in physics to be as successful, but the, the student as, as, as customer, I think also has, um. Solidified this, this notion, um, that we can le list the student feedback, right? And, and student feedback is important. So I'll qualify that that standards were, were low.I, I know for my own example, you know, even 20 years ago, right, that that undergraduates would have to produce a capstone thesis as part of their bachelor's degree. And I know firsthand that at from the time that, you know, [00:10:00] the history department had looked at, um, exit surveys of people who didn't finish their history degree.And they said, well, why didn't you finish your history degree? I said, oh, well, you know, I, whatever the program was, psychology, sociology, doesn't matter, whatever the other degree was. That degree program didn't require a thesis. So that was. That was easier, right? That was the student saying, you know what, I'm gonna opt out of the hard work and I'm gonna take, take this other one.And so the history department's answer kind of like the we'll stop grading essays was, we won't, we won't require a thesis anymore that'll stem the tide of our losses. Of course it didn't. Right? 'cause they're larger things going on and, and you know, some of it's internal, some of it's external and out of, out of, you know, history departments, you know, control.Um. But I, I think part of, part of this also then sort of, you know, cuts this, this notion of the rhetoric in the last, at least two decades of [00:11:00] college is your ticket to a successful career. Like, and it's just quantifiable, right? I mean, there's no doubt that, you know, if you have a college degree, your lifetime earnings will be such and such amount higher than, right?So there's, there's clear evidence there. There's, there's, there's tangible things, but that's become degraded, I think. To, to a, a simple binary like, oh, my piece of paper gets me this. And, and I think that mentality has been sort of seeping in. And I think this is kind of where, um, some of these things are, are coming from.Like it is just a piece of paper. I don't have to worry about, you know, what skillset I get in higher ed because I'm gonna learn on the job anyway. Uh, or I don't, like, students will say, I don't see this as valuable to what I'm gonna do. So it's, it's as kind of said the reckoning long term, like upending, the higher ed.I mean, I, I think as some of these questions linger and, and, and simmer and, and costs get higher and, you know, [00:12:00] parents get more, you know, upset and, and, and students with their loans. I mean, I, I, I can't see going in, in perpetuity in the direction that it's, it's going with or without ai, but I think AI maybe speeds this up.Steve Pearlman (2): In a sense, I see this as an extension of Goodheart's Law, which is that if we just focus on the measurement, then the thing that we're measuring becomes inval or valueless to us, uh, because the measurement becomes the value. And I see that happening with ai, right? The goal is to create a paper that gets an a, it doesn't matter if I use AI to do it, because I've achieved the goal, right?The, the, the outcome that I want. I've satisfied Good Heart's law. I have produced the outcome and the measurement has been achieved. I haven't learned to write a paper or think for myself or put a sentence together, but I've nevertheless achieved the outcome, and that seems true from both perspectives.There's the student perspective, which is that I've produced the paper, I've gone through a series of [00:13:00] steps that have made the paper happen. I didn't write it, but I used AI to do it in a worst case scenario and presented it, and then it happens from the teacher's perspective, which is that whether or not AI grades it.They have, in fact, nevertheless produced the artifact that I need to assess and achieve the assessment and everybody's happy. Uh, except you know that this is utterly undermining the fundamental premise of education itself, which is the development of the individual. Yeah. Do you think down the road. I know this is purely speculative and maybe it's overly hopeful in fact, but does the reckoning in higher education, and maybe even in secondary education and primary education come down to saying, look, um, you know, AI is something that students are gonna be able to use and be proficient in regardless of whether or not we exist.The only way that we're gonna carve out a meaningful existence for ourself is an essentially, almost a reversion to [00:14:00] what higher education was. Years ago, maybe it is not as much for everybody. Maybe it is more for those people who really want to become intellectuals, use their minds, develop the mindsets and the skills of the intellectual in the positive sense of that, and in whatever way they're contributing to society.Maybe there are fewer institutions, but they are holding the line further on the cultivation of the individual and those individuals. Maybe because there are fewer of them and because they are more specialized in certain critical thinking skills become, again, more valuable to society. Is that possible, do you think?Or is, am I pipe dreaming here? Because I just hope education doesn't implode entirely though. I think a reckoning is gonna be healthy.Robert Neibuhr: Yeah.Steve Pearlman (2): What do you think?Robert Neibuhr: Yeah, no, I mean, um, the, the, the first bit that crossed my mind as as you were talking was this sort of the, the saying. Something about, you know, some of [00:15:00] us can pretend all the time and get away with it.All of us can pretend some of the time, but we all can't pretend all the time. Right? Like this sort of sense of, of, you know, like there, there has to be, someone has to tell the truth, right? Like the emperor with no clothes, it's like, well, clearly there's something wrong here. Um, but I to to the, to the future and where this, where this sort of looks and where you, where you went towards the, the end of the question.Um. I mean, I, I don't, I don't know, but if, if the rhetoric about AI reshaping the workforce, if, if part of that comes true and, and if it's, if it's about, you know, um, one skilled, let's call 'em a critical thinker, because ideally that's what's, what's going on. But one skilled, critical thinker at a desk can, can, you know, enter in the, the correct.Keystrokes to enable a machine to do the work of what 10 people would've done. I, I don't know. Right. Let's assume the, sort of, the productivity is there across [00:16:00] white collar, um, professions. I, I don't think, I think if you give everyone a college degree and the, the act, the, the possibility for a meaningful job is so slim.You create a society that that is. Seething with despair and resentment. Right? And, and you know, I'm scholar of primarily the Cold War. And you look at, you know, across Eastern Europe, the, the, the correlation between high unemployment, yet high levels of degrees of, of bachelor's degrees and sort of resentment and the political, the search, right?Like there, you see, especially in the 1970s and eighties, there's this sort of lost. Um, there's a sense of hopelessness, like, I can't survive here in Poland or Yugoslavia or Bulgaria, or whatever it was. Um, and, and if I don't fit, then, then that's like the society has failed me. And if, if we have this scenario where everyone just gets pushed through and gets a degree, [00:17:00] but you know, they're, they're, they're doing something that they don't, they haven't been trained in or they don't enjoy, or it doesn't fit with anything, it doesn't realize their personal goals.It has to, the system has to collapse. We have to reshape it into something that's trade school, uh, or, or what, you know, various levels. Right. And, and I get the idea of maybe a liberal arts, uh, uh, you know, system that, you know, people who want to enter in and, and, you know, be the sort of intellectual, the philosopher kings, I suppose, right.But, um, but that there, there probably should be some sort of system that would, that would recognize that because it, it, it doesn't, it doesn't seem like society, we'd be playing too many games and, and fi you know, playing with fire if, if society is just sort of running on the status quo.Steve Pearlman (2): I wanna bounce your article in inside Higher Ed against another one that was fairly [00:18:00] contemporaneous and I'll put it in the show notes.And the title was, effectively, AI is changing. Higher education, and it was very neutral in its assessment. But within that was a survey, uh, that was conducted of thousands of college students, two thirds of whom reported that the use of AI was probably degrading their critical thinking skills. And the, the author build this as neutrally changing higher education and I.I think there's a prevailing attitude in among many faculty members, at least the literature that's coming out is so much rah rah about artificial intelligence that if anything, that neutrality of the author was conservative relative to I think a lot of how educators are viewing it, but I was very disturbed by that characterization.If two thirds of students report that [00:19:00] using AI is probably degrading their critical thinking skills. How, how the hell are we describing that as neutrally changing or having positive and negative effects? It seems to me that that has, uh, at least for the time being, should raise enough alarms for us to say, wait a second.That's not having a neutral effect at all. That's a terrible degradation of higher education, especially given that it wasn't really cultivating critical thinking skills to begin with, and now that students themselves. Are reporting that it's harming it, especially when students tend to overestimate their critical thinking skills in most research surveys about it.This seems like it, it's a pretty clear indictment of artificial intelligence's role so far in education.Robert Neibuhr: Yeah, no, I, I think, and, and this sort of, um, I'm not surprised that I, as you said, like this, I, I think seeing that as neutral or, or. Um, continuing [00:20:00] to just cheerlead the, a notion among administration faculty that, you know, this is the new direction no matter what.Right? Those people who think they're critical thinking, those students must be misguided somehow they don't understand, right? I mean, we get this sort of disconnected, um, mentality. Um, but that's, that's, um, that, that does it, it creates a, a, a serious issue for, for the whole system because then again, it's, um.How willing are, are those, how willing are those two thirds, uh, who responded that way? How willing are they to follow the rules? How willing are they to, to not say, well, you know, this is all kind of a sham, so I, you know, I'll bend a little bit. I'll, I'll sort of have more ai, do more of my work. Like who's gonna catch me mentality?And that's, I mean, that's. Not to say they're bad people for student for doing that. That's kind of a natural reaction. We've encouraged people to take this sort of approach, [00:21:00] um, and, and 'cause students increasingly, I've witnessed, anecdotally, I've witnessed the, the decline in punishing students for academic offenses, right?I mean, I remember 20 years ago, uh, as a, as a grad ta. Um, I, I caught two students that I, I was pretty sure that they, they copied each other and they, they had essays that were, they changed some words, but I was convinced, and it, and the, the dean's office concur, concurred. It does seem that way, but you understand that one student has a serious problem right now and his mother's very ill, and, you know, we can give him a break.And I'm not out to, you know, obviously if someone's. Circumstances or circumstances, those are real, right? I mean, I'm not some sort of, you know, like we have to always, but you have a heart, but you, you know, what does that, what message does that send? Uh, that it's, oh, but if I have a sad story or something's going on in my life, [00:22:00] it's okay.And, and I think this AI use and, and the, in the lack of clarity. Um, and this sort of, all this sort of push is, is simply en encouraging the kind of behavior that we o overall don't want. Um, so maybe it's neutral now, let's say give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Um, maybe it's neutral today. I don't think it's neutral in a year from now, or six months, right?I don't, I don't think that can be, it's a sustainable thing.Steve Pearlman (2): Let me touch on that. Uh, because I was around, I'm old enough to have been around when the internet hit higher education. And I remember at that time two things that fascinated me that I thought were very odd, uh, for, and the faculty were as they are now with ai, think racing to embrace the internet, uh, Google searches, uh, HTML, and you know, so forth.And one of the things that struck me as very odd was the push they felt [00:23:00] to incorporate the internet into their classes and teach students how to use it and so forth. Which I didn't understand because it was very clear that the students were far more adept at it than any of the faculty were, and they were becoming the digital natives that they are now.And so I don't know why anyone felt as though we were needing to teach them how to use the internet when they were far ahead of us, obviously, in all of that. And the second thing was that emerged at the same time, was. An argument that, that it was a lateral shift, that reading short little webpages and clicking on different links, and as things got shorter and shorter, uh, and webpages got more desperate and so forth, we would, it was just a neutral shift in how people thought, and it was not a degradation of the ability to focus long term to go deeper.And so on, and I said, well, how can it not be? If we look at the two formats, you have a book on one hand that is a contiguous [00:24:00] set of ideas developed more deeply, and then you have a number of different web pages that are skirting across many different HTML links to different short paragraphs about things.And I sort of tried to scream at the wind a little bit about it back then, but it was, it was obvious that it was blowing in the wrong direction. And it seems to me AI is that only times about a thousand in terms of what's happening. Once again, we see a clamor to teach students how to use AI and incorporate it into their lives when they're already far ahead of us in terms of what AI is doing and how to use it.And the second thing is this notion that, again, it's lateral if not beneficial when the evidence suggests otherwise. Can you, in your insight where, given your position, I'm wondering if you can help me appreciate. Why are what is behind the faculty rush in education to embrace this? Is it, I get a sense and I'll, and then I'll be quiet because I'm trying to ask you a question.I've only asked four [00:25:00] so far. But, uh, I get a sense that, in a sense I think the faculty kind of feel helpless. That, that there's a, there's a sense that if we can't beat this and we have no idea how we could possibly beat this, then we might as well just go with it. Uh, do you feel like that's accurate?Robert Neibuhr: I think, I think, um, yes.I, I, you know, maybe a little more, some nuance to the, yes. Um, I, I suppose on the one side, um, again, faculty coming, generally coming from, from a good place, right? I wanna, I wanna help my students and I think that's, you know, um, you know, rather, rather ubiquitous, uh, among, among faculty, I wanna help, I wanna help the students, uh, do better and, and succeed.I, I think if, if there's this, this huge push to say that AI is the future, AI is if we don't, if we don't talk about it, if we don't introduce it to students, if we [00:26:00] don't sort of teach them things about it, that we're doing the students a disservice. So I, I think there's this reflective, like, we don't have much time.We have to teach them something. Let's chisel together, you know, some sort of idea and, and you know, then I can feel good about, um, having passed on some sort of, you know, knowledge to my students and help me better prepare them. I think that's perhaps, um, part of it. Um. Yeah, I think a helplessness in terms too of, you know, I, I feedback or things I hear from faculty in my unit and, and, and elsewhere is, is this sort of helplessness that administration is, has a tremendous amount of power and is sort of pushing an agenda that faculty don't have the ability to push back against as well.Right? So like. Again, a [00:27:00] perfect world. Let's think about this. Let's figure out what's actually necessary, how we can, how we can prepare students. Let's, let's think about this and, and be, be reasonable about it versus the sort of top down push. And I think faculties across the country have, have lost an ability to, to be self-governing as they would've been, you know, 20 years ago or something like this.Uh, and, and you know, the sort of administrative superstructure that has has dominated. You know, universities, uh, in, in the recent years, um, just simply says, this is what we do. And, and part of this is I thinklike, like before, right? So my university is, I think, the biggest in the country. Um, uh, or certainly one of the top three or something like this. Um, and, and the notion of scaling up is kind of always on sort of the, the talking points of the, this, right? We, let's scale up, let's do something else to have a even bigger, or let's grow by this much.Or [00:28:00] that, that pressure then doesn't come with let's hire X number of faculty to take care of that, right? Let's hire this many more people to, to get. So it's asking more, but without giving more support. Um. And I think too, what you, what you mentioned with in the beginning, uh, of your question with sort of the way the internet was, I haven't thought this through.This is just sort of, you know, just on the spot here. Um, maybe this is, maybe this is not necessarily the, the best analysis, but my own sort of thought there is, you know, we don't, we don't, we no longer have a robust research librarian. Network at universities anymore, in my opinion. So in other words, like folks who would've been in charge of, um, perusing, you know, the, the publications and, and journals and being in touch with faculty, doing research to say, Hey, I know you're [00:29:00] a specialist in this.Here are the newest titles. Do you want me to buy this database? Or whatever the, the thing might be, right? Like those, the intermediaries between the material and then the faculty. Those, those folks have been largely eliminated and they're not rep being replaced as they retire. There's only a few, a handful of programs that could do library science as a, as a master graduate degree anymore in this country.So with the idea that, that the internet just equalizes us, I'm just as equipped as you would be or the research librarian would be to just go online and find whatever I need. And that's, that's also not. Necessarily true, right? I mean, I, I may be in touch with the things going on in my field, but there's so much going on that I don't have time to, to, you know, and in a sense of research, I am overburdened in a way, and, and letting me fend for myself.Um, you know, maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. [00:30:00] But we've hollowed out the level of specialists who would be that point of reference to go in and, and look at all of those things. Sort of filter a bit and help in the process. And I think that's, you know, that's something I think the internet may have, may have helped, uh, do.And the way that so much became online in the last 20 years in terms of, of, you know, research materials, primary sources, all this sort of stuff. And, and the down, the downfall I would say of, of that profess.Steve Pearlman (2): That seems to me indicative that issue with librarians seems indicative to me of a larger issue.And it's one that you mentioned as well earlier of, um, this, the value of AI to the administration in terms of economizing further economizing further, further economizing instruction. Uh, so what risk do you see or do you hear on the ground? The tremblings of AI [00:31:00] replacing faculty members for certain tasks.I mean, we went from faculty members to adjuncts to teaching assistants doing most of the work. And I, I, I have to think, and there's already publication about it, of administration seeing AI as the next great cost saving measure.Robert Neibuhr: A hundred percent. Yeah. No, I, I think I, I think that's exactly right. I mean, the, the notion that you'd have sort of like.Sort of like at the grocery store, you have two or three checkouts that are open that has a person there checking you out versus the one person loading over 15 self checkouts. I, I, I think that's certainly, and it, especially thinking about economizing and scale and, and saving money. I mean, this has to be, I see it now with, with the, the way that, um, you know, students that used to be.A hundred students, 150, 200 maybe in a class was really big and you had a faculty member with three or four or five TAs or whatever the [00:32:00] breakdown would be. I, I have, I know people at, at my university have six, 700 students in the class. That's, I, I, I don't, how do you, you lose, I mean, that's, I mean, that's just incomprehensible to me in terms of the point of higher ed.Right? I mean, like, you don't, you're not fostering any. Any connectivity, you're not, I mean, it may as well be a bot because you, the student will never interact, you know? Right. Maybe the faculties of noble laureate, you'll never interact with that person. There's, there's very little, um, so that's, that's, that's I think, uh, you know, a, a huge piece of, of where this will go.And I, yeah, I think faculty are vulnerable, that they've been made more vulnerable over the last decades and, and, and Yeah. I don't see it voting well, my advice to the. Faculty. I began the podcast, right? This notion of let's stop grading, you know? I said, well, you know, I mean, we should think of ways that we remain [00:33:00] relevant, right?I mean, if, if we, if we propose that, well, we just won't grade essays. We won't assign essays, then for sure they can get someone, the administration can hire someone at lower pay to do what we're doing in the classroom. That's not. That's not a far stretch of anyone's imagination. Um, so I, I mean, I don't want to be a part of the, you know, the, the group that nullifies myself by taking away the prime thing that I can give.Right. Um, but not to ramble, but I, you know, part of the, this fear too is, is a student yesterday had sent me, um, uh, something that was really interesting. So, uh, we're a Cold War class. Cold War seminar. He read a book by, uh, John Lewis Gatis, and, and he, he read it. He, he had some notes. He understood a lot and really, really bright guy.And, and then he, he said, you know, I put into ai, I forget which, which program, but he put into AI created a [00:34:00] podcast that talks about this book. Holy cow. It was, I listened to 10 or 15 minutes of it. It was two people talking. They, they, it mimicked. It mimicked. I mean, it was, it could have been real had I been in the car listening, I would've thought this was a, a, you know, a book talk about Candice's last book on the call.It was, it was insane how good it sounded. And, uh, you know, uh, that's, that would be easy for, uh, you know, recreate, you know, Dr. Nebo in a, in a discussion seminar. So, you know, my, they can get my image and they can get my voice, and who knows? I mean, that, that can't be that thing.Steve Pearlman (2): No, and you know, it, you raised the point about chatting with bots and it, I'll piggyback on what you're saying right now.I can understand if we're gonna have an interaction with bots as an, as a tutor, and potentially valuably. So I'm not against all usages of ai, where if we're learning, say, the layers [00:35:00] of the earth's crust. Uh, as a very simplistic example, but nevertheless, we can rely on the AI to be relatively accurate in coaching us about the layers of the earth crust.But now there are also ais who will interact with you as Hamlet. Well, you could pull out any 50 Shakespeare scholars and have them respond to prompts and that you'll get different responses. All of them thoughtful. But this bot who is deciding, uh, but based on what algorithms are we deciding its responses as Hamlet to prompts that are not within Hamlet, that now we're crossing quite the Rubicon in terms of where we're putting trust in bots to educate our students or coach our students.In ways that I don't think are reliable, and it's not, even if the, even if the bot gives what might be very thoughtful hamlet responses and very reasonable ones, they are a selection of, of an [00:36:00] interpretation of Hamlet based on certain people. I guess that it's searching across the internet as opposed to others, and now that's equally dangerous to me as far as I can conceive.Robert Neibuhr: Yeah, I think, you know, that I've, I've. The same, the same sort of idea of the sort of book, book summary. And, and, and I mean, I, I, I think it's so even a fact, even just fact as you said, like just scientific facts that we know that can be provable. If, if we wind up having queries to the AI and say, okay, what is this?And it gives us the right answer and we check it, we know it, but at at a point, right? I mean, we have to say, okay, you know, it's been right 52 times. I trust it now, and who's to, and if I stop and check like, you know what, I verified, this is good, and now down the road it lies to me. Or, or again, this other, you know, avatar, other sort of per ai sort of driven personality or, or, or, [00:37:00] you know, this comes in and, and now I don't realize that I'm taking an information at face value.And again, I lose that critical thinking. I, I lose that ability. That's also reasonable, right? If I checked it so many times, what, what else can I do? I'm a busy person, right? We're all busy people. How can I keep referring back and verifying? Um, and that's gonna, I think that's gonna be a huge problem. If, if we wind up at some point saying, yep, that's good.And then, and thenSteve Pearlman (2): we're, we're duped down the road. It reminds me of an old Steve Martin joke. He would say that, um, he thought it would be a great practical joke to play on kids. Uh, if you raise them to speak wrong when they get to school, so all their words are incorrect and they have no idea. Yeah, it sort of seems like the same problem, right?A certain point. The AI might be telling us everything that's wrong. We have no idea that it's wrong, and we're living in that world where everything is distorted and we don't know what we don't even know. That's a terrifying prospect. Thanks for [00:38:00] bringing that up. I try to bring up the hide behind. So as, as we wrap this up, where, what didn't I ask you about?Where, what's the thing that you think we also need to talk about here that I didn't shed enough light on for this conversation?Robert Neibuhr: Oh, I don't, I mean, I, I guess I, I, my, my own sense is that, that the conversation. Any conversation about higher ed um, needs to be grounded in the basic principle of, of the point, like the, the value that, that we get from it, the, the goals that it, it it brings us.Um, and, and, um, you know, that if, if that's at the center, if, if the idea of, you know, instilling, uh, you know, students with the tools to. Actually survive in a dynamic world. You know, [00:39:00] my degree today might totally change into the reality. It might totally change in 10 years, whatever, if I'm still equipped to respond to that change.That's been a successful education. Right. And, and, and the, the point of the, the critical thought, the reflection, um, the, you know, preparing for, um. Really the, for our context in the United States, I mean, I think it's, it's also part of the, the whole experience with, or experiment with, with democracy, right?Inform citizenship. I mean, this is all part of it. If, if it's just, um, if the narrative about higher ed is simply the paper mill or green mill for a job to get some sort of, you know, a higher number of, of a wage, or if it's about, you know. Finishing just tick boxes and hitting goals without being ever checked or questioned.I mean, that's, that's, um. That's not the right, that's not the point. I, I don't think. Right. I mean, the, the, you know, what are, what are, how are we growing, how are we building ourselves? [00:40:00] How are we preparing for uncertain futures? And if the conversation they should always be, be, be centered on, on that, uh, whether it's AI or whether it's, you know, any other stuff.But that, that would be the only thing I would sort of stress. But I, we've talked about that already, but I think that's, I try to think of that in, in terms of any of these,Steve Pearlman (2): um, sort of conversations. I wanna ask you one last question that just came to mind. What if, I'm sure we have a lot, we have a lot of parents listening.I'm curious as to what message you would send to them if they have either students, children in college or children headed to college in the somewhat near future. What's the message for them at this point with respect to all of that? Because I don't exactly know what it is.Robert Neibuhr: Yeah, I mean, I, it's, I, it, it seems, what, what I think is, is, is is not gonna be a popular [00:41:00] or not gonna be, you know, what folks, you know, necessarily can, can even, you know, want to hear or, or, you know, could even act on it.But I, I, I guess part of it is, is to, can. Ensure you're involved and, and understand, you know, ask, what's the syllabus? I mean, I'll digress for a second, right? I mean, I, I, this is one of those things that I've had a critique about for, for a while. Um, sort of my grumpy old man coming out. But I mean like the, the sort of sense of like universities.Let's build a really luxurious dorm facility. Let's build up the sports center. Let's have, when, when the TV crew comes for the game day, we'll have brand new flowers. The, the sort of superficial wowing that happens. And parents, the, the, the tours are a big part of this, right? I mean, the tours show all the goodies.And not to say that that's a bad thing, right? I mean, you know, dorms were substandard 30 years ago in large, right? I mean, there's, there's an argument for why these things [00:42:00] are good. Um, but, but I think a lot of the, the, there's been a, a, a cleavage between what parents are told the experience is gonna be and what they're actually sort of shown and informed.And then of course, students want independence. Students want, you know, they're, they're on their own now, their decision makers and in large part, and there's a sort of disconnection there. And I, I think it's, it's hard, it's a big ask, but if parents can, can remain. Ask the tough questions. Like how many books in a library, how many, you know, how many, uh, you know, full-time faculty, how many, you know, go down the list of academic credentials.Um, and then look at the syllabi. Look at the assignments from from your students, right? Or, or think about, uh, if they're already in there or if they're going right. Think about that as something you would, you would do. Um. And, and, you know, keep people's feet to the fire, right? I mean, to use of a tired metaphor, but I [00:43:00] mean, keep, keep that as much as you can and, and, you know, try to push back because if, if students are customers, um, parents are the, are the ones paying for it ultimately.So they're detached their, the true customer. I, I suppose. And if they start calling up the deans and saying things like, what is, what's going on here? Um, maybe things will, will change. Maybe there'll be a, a response. Um, but stay informed, I guess, as, as much as I possibly can, I think wouldSteve Pearlman (2): be the, well, that seems Sage elite to me.Robert, thanks so much for being on actual intelligence. I appreciate it and, and, uh, as you're thinking evolves on this, maybe we can have you back in the future sometime and continue the discussion.Robert Neibuhr: Sounds great. Thank you.Steve Pearlman (2): Thank you. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit pearlmanactualintelligence.substack.com

How does your brain tackle a new problem? Believe it or not, it tackles new problems by using old frameworks it created for similar problems you faced before. But if your brain is wired to use old frameworks for new problems, then isn't that a problem? It is. And that's why most people never think outside the box.So, how do you get your brain to think innovatively? Divergently? And outside the box, when others don't?It's easier than you think, but before we get to that, let's be clear on something. When I talk about frameworks, I'm not speaking metaphorically. I'm speaking about the literal wiring of your brain, something neuropsychologists might refer to as “engrams,” and just one engram might be a network of millions of synapses.Think of these engrams as your brain's quick-reference book for solving problems. For example, if your brain sees a small fire, it quickly finds the engrams that it has for fire. One engram might be to run out of the house. Another might be to pour water on the problem. Without these existing engrams, you might just stand there staring at the fire trying to figure out what to do. So, you should be thankful that your brain has these pre-existing engrams for problems. If it didn't, every problem would seem new for the first time.But there's a serious flaw in the brain's use of engrams. Old engrams don't always really apply to new problems. So, let's say your brain sees a fire, but this time it's an electrical fire. It still sees fire, shuffles through its engrams, and lands on the engram for pouring water on that fire to extinguish it. In its haste, it's old engram overlooks the fact that it's an electrical fire. So, pouring water on it only spreads it, if not also gets you electrocuted.Your brain chose the closest engram it had for solving the current problem, but that old engram for extinguishing fire with water was terribly flawed in terms of solving for electrical fires. Old engrams never fully match new problems.So, here's why most people cannot think outside the box: They're trapped using old engrams and do not know how to shift their brains into new ones. That's right. Since the brain needs to rely on some kind of existing engram, then people who do not know how to break free of their engrams will never think innovatively, creatively, or outside the box.But thinking outside the box is easy if you know the trick. When faced with a problem, even if it is a similar to one you faced before, or especially if it is similar to one you faced before, you need to force your brain into looking at the problem in a radically different way. Remember, your brain will keep trying to work back to the old engram. That's it's default approach. It wants to use templates it already has. And so you have to shock it into a new perspective that does not allow it to revert to the old perspective. I'm talking about something that has nothing to do with the problem at all. I'm talking about an abstract, divergent, and entirely unrelated new perspective.For example, when you're facing a problem, or when you're leading a team facing a problem, examine the problem through some kind of radical analogy that seemingly has nothing to do with the problem itself, but something with which you are your team are familiar.You might ask, how's this situation like Star Wars? Who or what is Darth Vader? What's the force? Who or what is Luke Skywalker? What's a lightsaber in this scenario?Or, you might consider how your problem is like what happened to Apollo 13. How are we spiraling through space? How much power do we need to conserve and how do we do it? Who's inside the capsule? What's outside? Who's mission control? And so on.See, you might think that these are trivial or even silly examples, but remember, it is the fact that they are so unrelated and abstract that will jolt your brain out of its existing engrams and force it to look at the problem in entirely new ways. And here's the beauty of it: Because your brain still wants to solve the problem, it will on its own, whether you even want it to or not, find ways to make connections between your abstract idea and the problem itself, and it will do so in innovative, creative ways that will make your thinking or your team's thinking, stand out.Remember, when Einstein was developing his Theory of Relatively, he didn't just sit around doing math. He also spent a lot of time imagining what it would be like to ride on the front of a beam of light.So, when it comes down to it, if you know what to do, then thinking outside of the box might be easier than … well … easier than you think. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit pearlmanactualintelligence.substack.com

Thanks for reading Actual Intelligence with Dr. Steve Pearlman! Subscribe FREE to receive new posts and support my work.APA to Students: Don't Bother to Think for Yourselves Anymore. Let AI Do It.If in the future you want a psychologist who can actually think about psychology, or a doctor who can actually think about medicine, or a teacher who can think about what their teaching, or a lawyer who can actually think about the law, then the new American Psychological Association's (APA) A.I. policies should make you concerned. Maybe they should even make you angry.As many who've been to college already know, the APA's standards for what constitutes academic integrity and citing sources is the prevailing standard at most institutions. When students write papers or conduct any research, it's typically the APA's standards that they observe for what they are permitted to use and how they must disclose their use of it.Yet, when it comes to supporting critical thinking and actual intelligence, the APA's new standards just took a problematic if not catastrophic turn. And the irony is palpable. Of all the organizations that set standards for how students should use their brains, you might think that the American Psychological Association would want to hold the line in favor of actual thinking skills. You might think that with all of the emerging research on A.I.'s negative consequences for the brain—including the recent MIT study that showed arrested brain development for students using A.I. to write, which you can learn more about on my recent podcast—that the APA would adopt a vanguard position against replacing critical thinking with A.I. You might think that the APA would want to bolster actual intelligence, independent thought, evidence-based reasoning, etc. But instead of supporting those integral aspects of healthy brain development, the APA just took a big step in the opposite direction.I'm referring to the APA's new so-called “standards” for “Generative A.I. Use,” standards that open the doors for students to let Generative A.I. do their thinking for them. For example, the APA liscenses students to have A.I. “analyze, refine, format, or visualize data” instead of doing it themselves, provided, of course, that they just disclose “the tool used and the number of iterations” of outputs. Similarly, the APA welcomes students to have A.I. “write or draft manuscript content” for them, provided that they disclose the “prompts and tools used.”To be clear, the APA's new standards make it all too clear that it is very concerned that students properly attribute their uses of Generative A.I., but the American Psychological Association is not concerned about students using Generative A.I. to do their thinking for them. In other words, the APA has effectually established that it is okay if students don't analyze their own data, find their own sources, write their own papers, create research designs, or effectively do any thinking of their own; it's just not okay if students don't disclose it. In short, the leading and most common vanguard for the integrity of individual intellectual work just undermined the fundamental premise of education itself.What the APA could have done and should have done instead was to take a Gibraltarian stand against students using A.I. in place of their own critical thinking and independent thought. That is what it has done to this point. For example, students were simply not permitted to have a friend draft an essay for them. They were not, in many circles, they were not permitted to allow a friend to proofread their work unless the syllabus licensed them to do so. But for some reason, since it is an A.I. drafting the paper instead of a friend, the APA considers it permissible.Thanks for reading Actual Intelligence with Dr. Steve Pearlman! Subscribe free to receive new posts and support my work.Consistent with its history of guarding academic standards, the APA could have said that students who have an A.I. “analyze … data” or “write or draft manuscript content” were not using their own intellect and therefore cheating. Period. Doing so would have sent a strong message across all of academia that permitting students to use Generative Artificial Intelligence instead of their actual intelligence was a violation of academic integrity, not to mention a gross violation of the most fundamental premise of education itself: the cultivation the student's mind.To be fair, not all of the usages of A.I. referenced by the APA's new standards are cheating. For example, allowing students to use A.I. to “create … tables” or “figures” instead of painstakingly trying to build them in Microsoft word, would not replace the student's meaningful cognitive work.Furthermore, and more importantly, the APA's policies are not binding. Educators, departments, and/or institutions need not follow suit. Any given educator can still restrict A.I. usages and determine their own standards for what is acceptable in a given course, including the establishment of policies that would treat using A.I. to “analyze … data” as cheating (which it should be).And finally, the APA still asserts that “AI cannot be named as an author on an APA scholarly publication.” Yet, to co-opt a psychological term, that seems nothing if not “schizophrenic.” After all, if a student uses A.I. to find its resources, “analyze” their “data,” and “write” their “manuscript,” then why shouldn't it be listed as an author, if not the lead author? What, after all, is the student really doing anyway?Thus, as arguably the leading force for what constitutes academic integrity vs. cheating, the APA's move at least implicitly licenses students across academia to use Generative A.I. in ways that will undermine their individual work, critical thinking, and overall actual intelligence. Once again, the APA just told students everywhere that using A.I. to “write or draft manuscript content” for them, instead of thinking about it themselves, developing their ideas themselves, referencing sources for themselves, perhaps even reading sources for themselves, and on and on, is perfectly okay as long as they cite it when they do so.And while it remains true that faculty can do as they wish, imagine being that high school, college, or graduate school educator who has to stand against the APA. Imagine having to hold the line against what will be mounting droves of students who ask, “Why can't we use A.I. in your class when we use it in our other classes?” And who ask, “Why can't we use A.I. in your class when the American Psychological Association says it is fine?” Considering that educators with stricter A.I. policies are already seeing students unenroll from their courses, the new APA standards my prove catastrophic.So, that returns us to the emerging problem: If you think that academic institutions should graduate students who can think critically about their subject of “expertise”—if you want a doctor who can think about medical things—then the APA just told you that you had better thing again.(This article written with no Artificial Intelligence, only the actual kind.)If you support actual intelligence, please share this with other likeminded people.*** This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit pearlmanactualintelligence.substack.com

Thanks for reading Actual Intelligence with Dr. Steve Pearlman! This post is public so feel free to share it.Thanks for reading Actual Intelligence with Dr. Steve Pearlman! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.Want Your Kids Off Their Phones: They Just Told Us How to Do ItIn a new Harris poll conducted with The Atlantic, kids have reminded us about the importance unstructured, unsupervised play for the development not just of their actual intelligence, but of so many related developmental factors: critical thinking, problem solving, self-efficacy, social maturity, and, well, you name it.According to the article, What Kids Told Us About How to Get Them Off Their Phones, by David Graham and Tom Nichols, the Harris poll surveyed 500 kids between 8 and 12 years old, most of whom have phones and not only are on social media, but also interact—unsupervised—with adult strangers through social media or games. Yet, most aren't allowed out in public without adult supervision, even though, as the article states, “according to Warwick Cairns, the author of How to Live Dangerously, kidnapping in the United States is so rare that a child would have to be outside unsupervised for, on average, 750,000 years before being snatched by a stranger,” statistically speaking.But modern parents, concerned about dangers in the real world, relegate their kids to online interactions in part under the guise of their safety. As the authors put it, “because so many parents restrict their ability to socialize in the real world on their own, kids resort to the one thing that allows them to hang out with no adults hovering: their phones.”If there are operative words in that quote, they are “no adults hovering.” What kids report is that more than anything else, they want play that does not involve adult supervision.Of course they do. Why? Because, based on overwhelming amounts of research, our brains evolved with free play as a primary means of cognitive and social development. And that's not just true of humans, by the way. Studies on animals reinforce the point. For example, kittens who were not permitted free play also never developed they social skills they needed as adults. So, is should not be surprising that human children are meant to play with each other, in mixed groups, without supervision, figuring out how to get along, create games, test their own ideas, etc.If you want a sense of just how important and powerful free play is, then consider just one of many recent studies: Advocating for Play: The Benefits of Unstructured Play in Public Schools,Heather Macpherson Parrott and Lynn E. Cohen. The study examined the impact of increased free play time for kids in school, which found improvements in the following areas:· desire and ability to learn/focus,· mood,· social interaction,· cooperation,· problem solving,· independence, and· self-advocacyAll said, whereas the evidence about the harms of smartphones of child development is mounting fast, unsupervised free play helps young brains develop in just about all of the ways that they need to develop.So, though it might take just a little coordination with other parents, give your kids what they want (even they specifically don't know that they wan it): free play with other kids that's not (generally) under your watchful eye. Take their phones away and then drop them at a park, a backyard, a basement, etc. and tell them to have fun. And if they complain that they are bored, then tell them to figure out what to do, because that's exactly what their brains need to learn anyway.What I mean by that is that it is healthy for their brains to work through being bored, figure out how to resolve social conflicts, and invent what to do next, including, and most especially, adapt to changing circumstances. All of that happens through free, unsupervised play. So, sometimes the key to excellent parenting isn't parenting more, but parenting less.As Max Bekoff wrote, “Play is training for the unexpected.” This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit pearlmanactualintelligence.substack.com

Is ChatGPT dumbing down your kid? It is and here's what you can do.A new MIT study reveals the powerful consequences of artificial intelligence on actual intelligence, and guess what? Simply (and terrifyingly) put, the use of artificial intelligence undermines your child's actual intelligence. In short, when children don't think for themselves, they don't learn to think for themselves. That should surprise no one.I'll get to the disturbing details of the study in a moment, but let me first explain why these outcomes were obvious and inevitable. In a nutshell, the brain functions like a muscle insofar that it becomes stronger when it is used and atrophies when it is not used. I could list a thousand additional factors that affect thinking, but that simple premise really is enough for this discussion.And when I say that the brain functions like a muscle, most people think I'm speaking overly metaphorically. I'm not. While the brain, of course, isn't actual muscle tissue, its functioning is remarkably similar. Much in the way that exercising muscles builds more muscles, exercising the brain builds the brain—literally. Every single time we engage in a thinking act, the brain builds more wiring, such as synapses through synaptogenesis, for that thinking act. On the flipside, the brain not only allows existing pathways to diminish when they're not used, it actually overwrites existing pathways with new ones.Watch this play out in the MIT study …The MIT StudyThat study is Your brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task, by a team of researchers led by Dr. Nataliya Kosmyna. The scientists broke a group of students down into three essay-writing groups: An “A.I.-assisted” writing group that used multiple LLMs (not just ChatGPT), a “search engine” group, and a “brain-only” group. The students then engaged in three writing sessions while the researchers monitored their brain activity using an EEG. Each student was interviewed after each session, and all of their writing was assessed by humans, as well as an A.I.So, what happens when one group is required to use their brains more than the other groups? Would it shock you to know that the group that needed to do their own thinking actually thought more? I hope not, not anymore than it should be surprising that a group of kids who practiced hitting a ball did better at hitting a ball than a group of kids who watched a robot hit a ball for them. (Okay, that's not a perfectly fair analogy to the A.I. usage in this case, but it illustrates the point.)And the point is that brain-only group performed better and scored higher on their essays. But that's not the most important outcome for us. What's more important is that “the brain-only group exhibited the strongest, widest-ranging networks” of brain activity, while the group with A.I. “assistance elicited the weakest overall coupling.” In other words, the brain-only group thought a lot; the A.I.-assisted group did not. Do you remember what we said about what happens when the brain “muscle” isn't used?But it gets worse. The researchers brought those two groups back for a fourth session and switched their roles. They gave the A.I. group a brain-only writing task and the brain-only group an A.I. writing task. And here's what's so important: the brain-only group still performed better, even when using A.I., and the A.I. group still performed worse, even when given the opportunity to think for themselves. Or should I say, it did worse because they now had to think for themselves.Over the first three brain-only writing assignments, the brain-only students built their brains for the task, and they built mental frameworks (read: habits) to rely on when engaging those tasks. Thus, that they then “gained” an A.I. assistant did not suddenly degrade all of the wiring that their brains built. But the A.I. group, when suddenly given the opportunity for a brain-only task, not only had built no wiring for accomplishing that task, it also, and this is the most critical part, created wiring and mental frameworks for using A.I. instead.What that means in a nutshell, and these are my words not those of the study, is that the brain-only group got smarter and the A.I. group not only failed to become smarter, they got dumbed down—they became habituated to relying on A.I. Thus, when given the opportunity to do so, they were incapable of thinking as well as the brain-only participants did.All of that should be concerning enough, but there's more. In addition to the direct cognitive effects, the researchers also found that brain-only participants “demonstrated higher memory recall” and engagement of thinking-related brain areas compared to the A.I group. Meanwhile, compared to the brain-only group, the A.I. participants reported lower “ownership of their essay,” which is an educator's way of saying that they didn't care about it as much and did not feel as though it was their own.Thus, to sum it all up, A.I.-assisted writing made the kids perform poorly, made them dumber, and made them less invested in their own thinking and writing.What to doIn light of this study, one school of “thought” could be that since everyone is going to rely on A.I. in the future anyway, kids who do so will be no worse off than their peers, and using A.I. might free up time for them to do things that are more valuable than writing essays, which, again, they won't really ever need to write on their own anyway because A.I. will be there to “assist.” Those who subscribe to that position probably should stop following me here at Actual Intelligence right now as we will be rather inclined to disagree.The other school of thought is that thinking skills, such as those developed through writing, which research repeatedly shows is the best way to teach critical thinking, are far more important than any and all expediencies achieved through A.I. assistance. Let me rephrase that: If you want your kids to build their brains rather than have them degenerate into relatively useless gelatin that can only write A.I. prompts or order burrito online, then keep their brains as far from A.I. as possible.Obviously, there's not much that you can do with your college-aged kids other than share this information with them and hope they make the right decisions. But for kids still under your roof, there are things you can do:1. Share this information with them. Most kids don't want to become dumber; they do value their ability to think. So, take time to explain, and then reinforce, the consequences of A.I. In fact, start thinking of A.I. as something about which you need to begin messaging no differently than alcohol, drugs, and sex.2. Ask them how they use A.I. Understand their current relationship with A.I., and please keep in mind that the MIT study does not speak to other ways that students might interact with A.I. beyond this one context. Using A.I. in other ways might be more or less consequential.3. Check their work: There are plenty of sites out there that scan essays to see if they were written by A.I. Those sites are not perfectly reliable, but they might offer useful information about what your kid is up to.4. If you want to get serious, have your kids download all their source materials before writing, then shut of their internet while they write. Take away the temptation; make them use their brains.ConclusionThe implications of A.I.-based “thinking” work are becoming clear, but for anyone who has thought about it or who values thinking, they're also not surprising. Every time we use A.I. to “assist” our thinking, it not only prevents us from thinking, it degrades our capacity to think in the future.Worse—much, much worse—is that those of you reading this built your brains before A.I. existed, which means that even if you gravitate to using A.I. now (please don't), you've got a lot of “muscle” built up to abate its consequences. A.I. will still degrade your thinking, but those sound neural pathways you built up all your life won't all turn to jelly overnight.But for your kids, it's different. Their neural pathways are still in the process of building up for the first time. Even though we are all always rewriting our brains, kids' brains have not even fully developed, so whatever they habituate to will become hardwired moving forward. Consequently, kids who are raised as A.I. natives might never develop their brains for thinking in the same way yours did. And that will not only affect their lives, but a generation of lesser-thinkers will affect all our lives.But there's good news! Somewhere down the line, kids who actually learn to think for themselves will stand out against the emerging generation who might not. So, if you can raise your own child to think critically, they might just be among the few who lead the world to a better place.And that, once again, is why actual intelligence is so important. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit pearlmanactualintelligence.substack.com

We finally have emerging research on Artificial Intelligence's consequences for actual intelligence.  If you're an educator or parent--or if you're anyone who just thinks that thinking is important--then you need to learn about this study.  It offers hard evidence that our young people are in danger of diminished thinking skills for life. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit pearlmanactualintelligence.substack.com

Stuck in a mental rut?  Need a way to break out of your current thought patterns?  Want to unlock and unleash your creative, divergent, disruptive thinking skills?  Who doesn't? Listen to learn how!

More Headagogy coming soon!  Also, check out The Critical Thinking Institute pdocast, with me!!!

Steve interviews Louis E. Newman, author of Thinking Critically in College: The Essential Handbook for Student Success.  What's the relationship between thinking and studentship?  How can we -- and why should we -- move students to think about disciplinarity?  Are colleges promoting the thinking of which Newman advises students?  And how can they benefit from his ideas regardless?

Is ChatGPT friend or foe?  Should the whole world, as Australia has done, relegate essay writing to inside classrooms?  Is "the academic essay dead"?  Or is ChatGPT, as some have contended, a tool for critical thinking that we should embrace as a new ally in teaching students?As Steve discusses, ChatGPT certainly is a revelation, but no one is really talking about why, and it might not be what you expect.

Continuing their discussion of the pedagogical, institutional, and societal implications of rubrics and rubricizing, Joe, Michelle, and Steve get into rubrics and questions of ...privilege and the expression of structuralized racismthe effort to dismantle public education through standardizationhow rubrics as a concept contribute to the undermining of teaching as a profession, and so much more.

Steve and the authors of Rubric Nation -- Michelle Tenam-Zemach and Joseph E. Flynn, Jr. -- get into it about all things rubrics and rubricization, as well as whatever it is that we are doing, good and bad, as an educational system regarding teaching, learning, democracy, assessment, studentship, dialogue, politics, critical thinking, teacher training, privilege, race, class, and our greater (and lesser?) humanity.  Spoiler alert: it's "a mess."  But that's what makes this discussion particularly deep and interesting.

Steve welcomes futurist Frances Valintine: Founder of MindLab--the Best Start-up in Asia Pacific as judged by Steve Wozniak and Sir Richard Branson in 2014.  Frances is a member of the New Zealand Hall of Fame for Women Entrepreneurs (2022), and named one of the top 50 EdTech Educators in the World by EdTech International (2016).  They discuss progressive teaching practices and the wide-scale implementation of change across New Zealand, and its implications for our conception of educational institutions worldwide.

Listen for an in-depth discussion of the rigamarole around academic rigor, including what might be a very surprising--though nonetheless perfectly sensible--root of its challenges.  Student vs. faculty conceptions of rigorG.I. infections"Summer School"

Part 2 on Jones's firing, including a cranky look at curious statements by NYU, and an uncomfortable look at time traveling through the academy.

Steve takes an in-depth look at NYU's expedited decision to fire distinguished Organic Chemistry professor, Dr. Maitland Jones, after receiving a petition from students complaining about his course.  What's really at the heart of NYU's actions?  What role did the petition play? What role should rigor play in education? And what in the world does the movie, Demolition Man, have to do with any of this?

Steve welcomes the University of Wyoming's own TK Stoudt and his students, Amy Bezzant, Maddy Davis, and James Roberts.  Hear about the triumph (and trials!) of peer assessment from an educator who's newer to implementing it, and from students who encountered it for the first time.  What really happens when we give Excalibur to Uryens?  Why should you have a campfire in your classroom?Should Maddie marry an NFL player?Learn the answers to all that and more!

Steve welcomes the University of Wyoming's own TK Stoudt and his students, Amy Bezzant, Maddy Davis, and James Roberts.  Hear about the triumph (and trials!) of peer assessment from an educator who's newer to implementing it, and from students who encountered it for the first time.  What really happens when we give Excalibur to Uryens?  Why should you have a campfire in your classroom?Should Maddie marry an NFL player?Learn the answers to all that and more!

Ken Bain, author  of  What the Best College Teachers Do and What the Best College Students Do, joins Headagogy to discuss his latest book, Super Courses: The Future of Teaching and Learning.  The discussion with Bain not only delves into examples of these courses and their relationship with problem based learning, but also into critical ideas for teaching and learning, such as why "expectation failure" is so absolutely critical.  Learn the steps you need to take to start your own "super course."

In this concluding episode on peer assessment, Steve conveys the research on peer assessment, learning outcomes, and soft skills.  There should be no doubts about its value, especially, in the words of Walter Lippman, "It takes wisdom to understand wisdom. The music means nothing if the audience is deaf."

Continuing his assessment into peer assessment as an important method of ungrading, Steve not only talks about how he implements it, but several other important issues, such as how peer assessment:De-emphasizes the focus on gradesRelieves students' stressFosters democratic ideals and an empowered populous, andIMPROVES learning outcomes.

In this first episode of a three part series, Steve delves into the hot topic of "ungrading" with a focus on the particular and unique value that involving students in assessment brings to the greater ungrading discussion.  Learn more about grades as the locus of power in academia, the unconscious forces behind grades, students' literal capacity (or lack thereof) to understand grades, the relationship between grades and social constructionism, and, most importantly, the movie, Excalibur.  

The continuation of the interview with Kieran O'Mahony.

This interview with Kieran delves into fascinating neuroscience about learning that can help transform what we do in our classrooms through understanding things like the Reticular Activating System, working memory, and neurotransmitters.  Kieran offers concrete things every educator can immediately adapt in order to improve their learning outcomes and their students' enjoyment of education.  At the same time, the interview delves into the remarkable ways our educational system, including practices still in place today, dis-formed itself around misunderstandings of scientific findings by the likes of B.F. Skinner, E.L. Thorndike, and Marion Diamond (to name a few).  

What is the relationship between STEM and creativity?  Or, at least, what's the perceived relationship?  And what happens when we invest millions of dollars and years of effort to improving STEM educational practices?  What happens cognitively when we do it well for just a few months?  All that and more, including a shoutout to Louisiana.

Steve interviews Dr. Cornelius N. Grove about his most recent book, A Mirror for Americans, which delves into the research as to why students in East Asia invariably outperform American students on international tests.  The discussion explores myths about education in East Asia, such as the misconception about drilling, and delves into educational and cultural differences that make students in East Asia so successful.  This podcast provides a wonderful mirror for American educators by establishing East Asian practices as a point of contrast and thus elucidating tacit assumptions we hold about education, assumptions we might otherwise overlook.

Steve tackles some of the controversy around Critical Race Theory (CRT), in part by examining its lineage back to critical theory and critical pedagogy.  In doing so, he delves into broader question of how power is wielded in the academy, and what the academy is as a power structure.  Curiously, also, Ferris Bueller.

What's "imposter syndrome" and how does it impact our students' relationship with us?  How does it impact our relationship with students?   Just how critical are our relationships with students with respect to their academic success and our achievement of desired learning outcomes?  What are simple things we can do as individual educators to build more meaningful relationships?  What are the larger cultural and institutional questions?Learn about all of that and more as Steve interviews Elon University's Peter Felton and Leo Lambert about their book, Relationship Rich Education: How Human Connections Drive Success in College.

Do you want to teach critical thinking but struggle to do so given how much content you need to cover?Do you feel departmental, institutional, or disciplinary pressures to cover certain material?What are the four major objections educators voice about teaching critical thinking relative to content?Why are critical thinking and content actually never at odds?What does the Brad Pitt movie, Moneyball, have to do with all of this?Find out all of this and more as Steve not only answers all of the above, but empowers you with the knowledge and responses you need to keep critical thinking at the forefront of education.

Jesse Stommel of the University of Denver, author of An Urgency of Teachers, and “ungrading” maven joins Steve for a thought provoking and, at times, joyously contentious discussion about inviting students to assign their own grades to themselves.  Ultimately, the conversation swerves into grading's and education's implications for society and politics.  But who could have seen that coming? 

Steve delves into A Thousand Brains: A New Theory of Intelligence, by Jeff Hawkins, which holds immediate implications for the teaching of critical thinking as understood through the literal functions of neurons!  But contrary to the title, teaching critical thinking doesn't become easier through thousands of things; it actually becomes easier, and more successful, through very few.

Want to know what your colleagues mean when they talk about "critical thinking"? Want to know how to stimulate dialogue about it at your institution? Want to know why Steve is like Annie Wilkes?Two recent studies shed new light on how educators conceptualize critical thinking and, more importantly, which particular aspects of critical thinking they value most.  But while the studies in one sense empower educators to discourse about critical thinking at their institutions, they also expose some challenges to critical thinking education.  Ultimately, Steve uses the articles to offer specific, easily applied approaches to teaching critical thinking.TheCriticalThinkingInitiative.org/Podcasts

We're excited to welcome Zoe Weil from the Institute for Humane Education Zoe is the author of The World Becomes What We Teach and is a notable TedX contributor.  Zoe focuses her work on helping educators build "solutionaries" who tackle real world problems.  Join us as we discuss the overlays between her work and ours, and critical thinking in general.

A recent article in The New York Times argued that critical thinking is a dangerous "rabbit hole" and isn't the right tool for fighting "fake news."  Dave and Steve discuss the article's alternative, and, of course, advocate for stronger critical thinking in media literacy.  

Did you know that at any given point during an online lecture, 40% of students' minds are wandering?  Join Dave and Steve to learn about "persistence" vs. "transience" in memory, and how to improve your learning outcomes.

Dave and Steve return with a podcast on combating fake news and why we should all be jealous of Finland.  Also, the new Critical Thinking Initiative Online learning experience, and Steve's new book, America's Critical Thinking Crisis: The Failure and Promise of Education.

Join us for an exciting announcement and an interview with John Eyler, Ph.D., author of How Humans Learn: The Science and Stories Behind Effective College Teaching.   Wishing everyone wellness, safety, and satisfying teaching (or a much needed break!) in this time of COVID.

Given the sudden mass migration to online learning because of COVID19, The Critical Thinking Initiative offers this brief, "emergency" podcast about simple measures every instructor, K-Ph.D.--can take to ensure that the online learning experience is a positive one for the students.  Please feel encouraged to share this one with everyone you know who has suddenly had to transition their teaching online.

Steve and Dave delve into recent research on critical thinking growth throughout college. Learn the extent to which it is happening and why. Warning: this episode may contain some ranting.

Steve and Dave tackle the complex issue of how to respond to student work effectively. Spoiler alert: It's somewhere between a pat on the back and psychiatric analysis.

Mindfulness education is gaining popularity in academia, but does helping students get their Zen on also help them to think critically? Take some deep breaths, find your center, and start listening!

Steve and Dave engage an article by Daniel Willingham about whether or not, and how, critical thinking can be taught.  This podcast strikes deep into critical thinking education, taking on essential questions concerning transfer, deep structure, disciplinarity, and content knowledge.  How should we fundamentally conceptualize critical thinking's presence in the educational process?

Steve & Dave respond to an article and, more broadly, to the "ungrading" movement, which assert that grades interfere with deeper learning.  Listen in to find out why grades do, don't, and shouldn't hinder learning, and how we can use them constructively.  Also, a little known fact about Zeus.

Several faculty members from the University of Wyoming share their perspectives on critical thinking after a three-day workshop with Dave and Steve. This is a rare opportunity to listen to other educators' perspectives on incorporating critical thinking into their teaching practice.

Dave and Steve engage the questions and critiques around whether or not the term "critical" is the best one for the kind of thinking we want students to do. Do its connotations outweigh its intention? Is there a term that's better?

Steve and Dave welcome Jackson Nickerson, Ph.D., who is the Frahm Family Professor of Organization and Strategy at the Olin School of Business, and who founded the Leading Thinking program through Brookings Executive Education. This is a powerful conversation that culminates in the many risks for our students if we fail to forge forward with thinking-driven learning.

Steve and Dave look at the recent article from The Chronicle of Higher Education about James Madison University's X-lab, and they examine rising contemporary calls for opportunities for students to innovate and problem solve.  Are X-Labs the future of learning?  Should your school have one?  In related news, Steve drops a bomb about lucite.

Dave and Steve welcome Michael S. Roth, author of Beyond the University: Why Liberal Education Matters.  Michael offers wonderful perspectives on the relationship between critical thinking, the liberal arts, and interdisciplinary.  He also raises critical perspectives about the importance of pushing students to step outside their own viewpoints about the world.

What's the relationship between certain video games and critical thinking skills?  According to some recent assertions, select video games promote critical thinking by creating rich worlds in which players must make difficult choices.  To what extent do those choices foster critical thinking?  And to what success are video games being employed in classrooms?  Also, why are Steve and Dave making obscure references to M.A.S.H.?  Find out the answers to all those questions on this episode!

Is PowerPoint "the viagra of the spoken word and a wonderful pill for flabby lectures"?  Steve and Dave tackle the research on one of the most widely used classroom tools.  They not only offer specific tips for modifying PowerPoint to invite more critical thinking, but also make obligatory connections to John Carpenter's classic film, They Live.  

Vipin Thekk of ChangemakerCommunities.org joins Dave and Steve to discuss the work he does in helping reshape schools and communities so that they prepare students for an unknown future. The discussion includes ways that critical thinking, empathy, and discourse will be vital to our students, as well as how to create change where needed.